The BiG NO has been stopped by the Scottish Government

[long_range_rob]

Skywull

i believe it's called democracy.

Unfortunately we are in a country where the great majority can't be arsed to vote so we are all left with a government voted for by 30%ish of the population. This is further compounded by all politicians being self serving Teflon coated gravy train riding gits.

I didnt vote Labour but we had them in for about 15 years.

 

[urx]

spoken like a true tory lol can you explian why a country gets a party they dont vote for in power here time after time ...the only way to stop that is with a yes vote it'll get rid of the tory dictators and if your talking stupid we just have to look at some of your statements salmonds never dictated anything to anyone at anytime.....feel free to get inventive lol

This has to be a troll.... Surely

 

[6pointer]

urx. skywull is putting his opinion on the site why call him a Troll. There are around 50%(Give or take a few %) of the electorate going to vote Yes on Thursday including some very clever and important people are they all trolls. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were voted in by the English you got what you wanted not what the scots people wanted. This time we will get what the majority of Scottish people want YES or NO.

 

[Mungo]

A question born of genuine curiosity: constitutional changes usually require a two thirds majority. This is a constitutional change if ever there was one. Why did they decide that a straight majority was adequate?

I ask because it seems increasingly obvious that, whichever way the vote goes, a very substantial proportion of the electorate (roughly half) will be extremely unhappy about it, and less than enthusiastic supporters of any ensuing changes. There is also a serious problem with the volatility of people's preferences, which means that a 50% mandate may really just represent a very short term blip. Given that support for Yes has increased from under 40% to about 50% in about 6 weeks, it also reveals how labile people's preferences are: if we were to wait another month, there is every probability that the relative proportions will have changed by 10% again (in either direction).

Both of the above are, I think, why major constitutional change usually requires two thirds majority: it is much less susceptible to short term fluctuations in people's preference, and you carry a much stronger foundation of support with you after the change is approved. It seems that going with a straight majority is just asking for future trouble.

Any ideas?

 

[long_range_rob]

Gordon and Tony voted in by the English?!?!

Scotland is a Labour heartland. That's why wet Ed is terrified by independence and the loss of those votes.

I really must get some fish to go with all these chips (on shoulders)

BTW I am English with a Scottish grandfather so speak as a vested interest who gets no say because of his postcode

 

[paul k]

This time we will get what the majority of Scottish people want YES or NO.

Not necessarily, we Welsh got a devolved government because 25.1% of Welsh voted for it. Only about 50% of the Welsh actually voted on the day. A very small majority of those who bothered to vote said "yes" but by no means the majority of Welsh people as the views of half of them are unknown. The other point is that Scots currently outside Scotland, for whatever reason, will not be allowed to vote but foreigners resident in Scotland will be voting so again, probably not a "majority of Scottish people", whichever way it goes.

Of course you could say that some of the people who voted in the Welsh devolution referendum were foreigners resident in Wales, very true but we were not voting to leave the Union which is clearly many levels in importance above voting for who decides how public money is spent in Wales.

Sadly, although I expect a decent turnout of voters, with such a small difference in the polls, the result is more likely to be decided by those who don't vote than those who did.

 

[paul k]

A question born of genuine curiosity: constitutional changes usually require a two thirds majority. This is a constitutional change if ever there was one. Why did they decide that a straight majority was adequate?

I ask because it seems increasingly obvious that, whichever way the vote goes, a very substantial proportion of the electorate (roughly half) will be extremely unhappy about it, and less than enthusiastic supporters of any ensuing changes. There is also a serious problem with the volatility of people's preferences, which means that a 50% mandate may really just represent a very short term blip. Given that support for Yes has increased from under 40% to about 50% in about 6 weeks, it also reveals how labile people's preferences are: if we were to wait another month, there is every probability that the relative proportions will have changed by 10% again (in either direction).

Both of the above are, I think, why major constitutional change usually requires two thirds majority: it is much less susceptible to short term fluctuations in people's preference, and you carry a much stronger foundation of support with you after the change is approved. It seems that going with a straight majority is just asking for future trouble.

Any ideas?

A very good point but sadly now academic in terms of the majority needed but perhaps prophetic in terms of what might happen after the vote.

 

[Shabz]

This has to be a troll.... Surely

I never really understood the whole 'troll' thing? What's the point in debating with people you agree with? Surely we're all trolls?

To answer the comrades point though, What do we do with all the labour strong holds in England? They all have a government that they didn't vote for? Do we make all of those places independent too?

 

[Greymaster]

urx. skywull is putting his opinion on the site why call him a Troll. There are around 50%(Give or take a few %) of the electorate going to vote Yes on Thursday including some very clever and important people are they all trolls. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were voted in by the English you got what you wanted not what the scots people wanted. This time we will get what the majority of Scottish people want YES or NO.

Define "Scottish People" please.

Being Scottish is not derived by ethnicity. For example, many of the residents of Strathclyde will be descended from the Welsh, i.e. the original Brittonic speaking inhabitants at the time of the Romans. As will many of the residents of Cumbria. Scotland is not populated by a homogenous ethnic grouping of peoples, it is populated, as is much of the North and North-West of present day England, by (Picts excepted), Scots, Attacotti, Britons, Angles, Saxons, Scandinavians etc.

Scottish nationhood is simply founded on the politics and policies of lesser and greater kings, many of whom were alien to the region. Scotland is a geographic expression, as is Britain and England.

It is true that a distinct cultural identity and legal system emerged and was organised within the territory, but IMHO this gives no greater or lesser right to self-determination than say the residents of Lancashire and Yorkshire who have a shared history, notwithstanding the artificial dynastic squabbles of related aristocrats, and who outnumber the "Scots".

The Westminster Parliament was established by treaty between two self-governing entities, by commissioners representing these, under the king of both realms, because he wanted a unified Kingdom. For the residents of modern day Scotland to complain that they did not get the Government that they voted for is disingenuous, they got the MP's that they elected, as did the residents of the other geographies which are represented by the Westminster Parliament. To deny the legitimacy of this fact is to decry the democratic principle.

 

[paul k]

To answer the comrades point though, What do we do with all the labour strong holds in England? They all have a government that they didn't vote for? Do we make all of those places independent too?

Nobody voted for a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition but if more people actually voted we might have a government that truly represented the majority of voters, whichever government that turned out to be.

 

[gerarddwatts]

urx. skywull is putting his opinion on the site why call him a Troll. There are around 50%(Give or take a few %) of the electorate going to vote Yes on Thursday including some very clever and important people are they all trolls. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were voted in by the English you got what you wanted not what the scots people wanted. This time we will get what the majority of Scottish people want YES or NO.

What rubbish..in 3 out of the last 4 elections, Scotland got exactly the government it voted for.....and probably will again in the next.

 

[urx]

urx. skywull is putting his opinion on the site why call him a Troll. There are around 50%(Give or take a few %) of the electorate going to vote Yes on Thursday including some very clever and important people are they all trolls. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were voted in by the English you got what you wanted not what the scots people wanted. This time we will get what the majority of Scottish people want YES or NO.

a troll makes a deliberately provocative statement in the hopes of drawing a flame war. we agree thats a troll yes?
the direction of the vote isnt particularly important though I'd probably react less to one that wasnt so overtly 'freedumb...'
No issue with intellignet people voting their conscience. everyone should vote..pretty sure we will also agree on that yes?
Who said I wanted Tory B'liar or Gordon volvo crash?

in answer to the troll question ...sorry serious person .. we all voted and got the MPs we voted in. The overall govt was comprised of MPs from Scotland England Wales and NI ..so whats the problem? we got a coalition comprised of political parties that wernt that popular up here but it could have so easily been a Lib/Lab coalition and we would have been responsible for some of those MP seats in Govt rather than as currently in opposition.
Voting yes in the independence referendum gets you a reduced pool of political parties which may or may not suit your leanings...thats not what the independence vote is really about though.
its whether we think there is sufficient financial stability and merit in the case made to date to take the irrevocable step away from the UK or to decide that while it might be right at some point, now is not that time.

I think the wording was deliberately provocative and smells likea troll...your nose may differ

 

[skywull]

This has to be a troll.... Surely

that was very inventive lol i can see you musta been the puddin monitor at your school

 

[urx]

that was very inventive lol i can see you musta been the puddin monitor at your school

Sadly not

 

[skywull]

a troll makes a deliberately provocative statement in the hopes of drawing a flame war. we agree thats a troll yes?
the direction of the vote isnt particularly important though I'd probably react less to one that wasnt so overtly 'freedumb...'
No issue with intellignet people voting their conscience. everyone should vote..pretty sure we will also agree on that yes?
Who said I wanted Tory B'liar or Gordon volvo crash?

in answer to the troll question ...sorry serious person .. we all voted and got the MPs we voted in. The overall govt was comprised of MPs from Scotland England Wales and NI ..so whats the problem? we got a coalition comprised of political parties that wernt that popular up here but it could have so easily been a Lib/Lab coalition and we would have been responsible for some of those MP seats in Govt rather than as currently in opposition.
Voting yes in the independence referendum gets you a reduced pool of political parties which may or may not suit your leanings...thats not what the independence vote is really about though.
its whether we think there is sufficient financial stability and merit in the case made to date to take the irrevocable step away from the UK or to decide that while it might be right at some point, now is not that time.

I think the wording was deliberately provocative and smells likea troll...your nose may differ

im trying to make me mind up if i like troll or agent provocateur lolol can we have a vote on it or will we give the later to the three stooges that came up from london ...lol...

 

[long_range_rob]

I definately prefer Agent Provocateur

 

[skywull]

 

[LuckyEddie]

Huba huba!